If I Were A Rich Man

The Politico wonders whether the escalating cost of campaigning and feverish competition for donations will lead to candidates investing more of their own money in their campaigns (a potential boon in terms of viability for the wealthier candidates).

The article makes the point that, historically speaking, the wealthiest candidate is not guaranteed a victory (hello Ross Perot and Steve Forbes) but particularly in a crowded primary season like the one we're experiencing now cash on hand translates into visibility, and into the the size of the microphone a candidate can buy to broadcast his message.

Campaigns are as much about analyzing the state of the country and its future as they are about electing a candidate and a campaign finance system that provides no viable way for potential candidates without access to wealth to be competitive distorts the discussion in favor of the concerns of those with money. And when we're talking about John McCain and his $20 million in assets being at a disadvantage compared to Mitt Romney when it comes to investing in his own campaign it's plain that just such a distortion is occurring.